Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science of Identity Foundation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, and more of a lean towards keeping it, after much-extended time for discussion. Neither BLP concerns nor disruptive editing are concerns of weight to the question of encyclopedic notability. If disruption persists, the article may be edit-protected. BD2412 T 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Notability (organizations and companies), because it has not been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Apparently it was active with 20 or so members in the 1970s, and has been mentioned in passing several times in news media. There are insufficient reliable sources to write an informative and neutral article. TFD (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:N due to numerous secondary sources. The article is still a stub and we are in the process of building it out (as noted in early-October AfD attempt).  No RS suggests "20 or so members" in the 1970s; on the contrary, RS suggest 1000+ members at that time, including notable politicians in the 1980s.  Other WP articles reference this article.  Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Samp4ngelesCan you point to a single article in a reliable secondary source about the foundation or any source that says they had 1,000 members? TFD (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What was your own source for claiming (in the deletion rationale) that it was only "active with 20 or so members in the 1970s", and for implying that this was the maximum of its extension? And doesn't the article already cite a source claiming they had 1,000 members? Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was just a response to TFD's unsubstantiated claim that the organization consisted of 20 or so members. As you have pointed out, that claims is refuted by multiple RS.  In any case, a focus on the exact number of followers is a bit misguided given other notability. Samp4ngeles (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2019
 * I was relying on a source used in the article, "About 20 straggly haired young people between 18 and perhaps 22 live in an old, green quonset hut." ("one man rules Haiku Krishnaites," The Honolulu Advertiser. 28 Jul 1970.) There are no other reliable sources that provide any indication of its membership. TFD (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Haiku Krishnaites and article you are referring to describe the very early days of Butler's following -- seven years before he even founded the Science of Identity Foundation. "Older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" (WP:AGE MATTERS), and Butler spent the last 40 years building the SIF.  RS in the late 1970s and 1980s, through present day, suggest a much bigger and global network. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TFD, I'm more and more confused by your argumentation here. Didn't you earlier argue yourself - eloquently and correctly - that a source published in 1970 can't be used for statement about a group founded in 1977? And contrary to what is implied by your above comment, the article currently cites a RS for the statement "In 1977, Butler estimated the group had 1,000 devotees throughout the world". If your argument is that you disagree with the RS in giving credence to that estimate, then state that directly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:GNG handily. It is covered in an entry of Infobase's Encyclopedia of Hinduism which I just added to the article, and there is also the in-depth coverage of The New Yorker (2017) and Honolulu Magazine (2004).
 * As noted above, the nomination is based on a misleading claim about the organization's size, which also makes one wonder about the accuracy of its assertion that the coverage in the state's largest and (previously) second-largest newpapers - repeatedly over several decades - which is cited in the current article revision was only "in passing". TFD, have you actually verified that for all these offline/paywalled citations before making that claim? Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Also, several paragraphs in New York Magazine (2019). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Saw this referenced in a Tulsi Gabbard RfC, which suggests to me that an AfD may be premature. Sourcing is not great. I suggest keeping it for now. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is being misused to perpetuate political and other disputes in violation of WP:BLPCOI. The material herein that is compliant with WP:BLP is already covered in ISKCON guru system. There will be no loss if this separate SIF article — which has been a magnet for defamation and dispute propagation — is deleted.


 * Sources including NYT and Hawaii Civil Beat have noted a concerted effort by a small group who seek to generate negative viral media attention to harm Chris Butler (founder of the SIF) and others who can be associated with the SIF (in particular, Mike Gabbard and Tulsi Gabbard).


 * The interlinked smear campaigns generated by these adversaries – widely available on the net and even repeated in tabloid 'human interest' pieces – range from incitement of racism and religious bigotry by 'othering' non-mainstream religious practices, to vague implications of sinister interconnections among people who follow those religious practices, to explicit allegations of criminal activity involving the CIA and Satanism.


 * Despite years of effort by the "cottage industry of researchers" (see NYT ) dedicated to digging up dirt, all legal actions related to the smears have in fact gone in favor of the victims (damages, settlements, injunctions, and at least one restraining order). That has not stopped the smear activity, and now Wikipedia is being used as a grapevine broadcast vehicle contrary to WP:NOTSCANDAL.


 * Whether those inserting the inappropriate material are working in concert with the known adversaries or are merely picking up material from the web to use for disputes per their own biases, they are repeatedly failing to act in accord with WP policy. This hurts not only the victims of the smears, but it is wasteful of other editors' time and highly damaging to Wikipedia's status as a credible encyclopedia. Humanengr (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Frankly your list of sourcing is dispositive on notability. If articles have BLP issues that is no concern here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N: “A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." WP:NOT includes WP:NOTSCANDAL, cited above. Humanengr (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Like Coretheapple said, these wide-ranging accusations of alleged smear campaigns etc. (without any concrete reference to supposedly problematic content in this article) are irrelevant here.
 * As for ISKCON guru system, that article would seem ill-suited as the main location for covering the present subject, considering that the organization was founded precisely as part of breaking away from that system (and has remained outside it for the last four decades). Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @, re "wide-ranging accusations of alleged smear campaigns etc. (without any concrete reference to supposedly problematic content in this article)": There is documentary evidence of coordinated defamatory activity smearing Chris Butler and the SIF, which is then being used for political purposes against Tulsi and Mike Gabbard. Such material can be provided if the admin here requests it, but it goes beyond the scope of this discussion. To provide just one example of improper use of the WP SIF article for continuation of disputes, harm to individuals, and scandalmongering, see this edit removing inadequately sourced inflammatory claims regarding islamophobic and homophobic statements attributed to Butler from over a decade ago. Inclusion of this cited source in the references, "Islamophobic World View of Tulsi Gabbard's Guru Revealed in Unearthed Recordings – Can she Still Run for President?", is sufficient to show that the goal is political rather than encyclopedic. Humanengr (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge into Tulsi Gabbard; similar to WP:BLP1E, this group seems to be a GRP1P (i.e. a group notable for 1 person). I can find almost no references for the group that don't mention them in relation to Gabbard. They don't seem to have any direct coverage in RS. Seems like a merge to me.... NickCT (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the Encyclopedia of Hinduism reference doesn't mention Tulsi Gabbard, and while I haven't reviewed them myself, we can be pretty certain (considering her age) that neither do the newspaper articles from the 1970s and 1980s that are currently cited in the article. What's more, even if it was correct that the only aspects of the topic that were ever covered concerned its relation to Gabbard, considering the breadth of this coverage alone (multiple independent RS over several years), that would still merit a separate article per WP:SUMMARY. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So we've got passing mention in the "Encyclopedia" of Hinduism, then a few articles from local Honolulu press from the 70's and 80's? Seems like thin gruel if you ask me. Is there any non-local coverage from the past decade that doesn't mention Gabbard? NickCT (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The presence of a city name in a newspaper's name does not mean it is "local"; The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin were the largest and second-largest newspaper in the entire state. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism entry is not trivial coverage. And regarding the wealth of other sources, you still haven't explained why "source mentions Gabbard" means "article must merged into the Gabbard article". (I do agree that it should contain a summary of those aspects that are most relevant to her biography.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the "good" sources (i.e. the national sources from the past decade) all cover this group in relation to Gabbard, clearly suggests that the group is only notable b/c of Gabbard; hence a merge seems appropriate.
 * The EoH entry strikes me as very trivial. You didn't answer my question about coverage from the past decade. NickCT (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment: My concern is that the article is a magnet for vandalism. One solution is to leaving it IF the separate SIF article can be locked to neutral factual content appropriate under WP policies. There have not been ANY events by SIF that warrant updating of the WP content since the profile was first included in the ISKCON article in 2010. There is no reason for continuous editing of the SIF article other than adding inflammatory elaborations to continue disputes and harm reputations for political purposes. Editors should not be burdened with chasing edits that violate WP:NOT. Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * you already !voted above, so please strikethrough your vote here so that you don't confuse whoever closes the discussion.  I think WP:EASYTARGET is relevant here: if editors violate neutrality guidelines, we deal with that through other means. Deletion discussions are about the notability of an article topic.  Nblund talk 16:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The New Yorker and NYMag have all run lengthy articles about SiF. Although those are more focused on Gabbard, Stuff magazine which is based in New Zealand (where SiF currently operates) has covered the group without discussing her. The Hawaiian press (1, 2) have been discussing SiF in Hawaii for decades. The Hawaii Advertiser (paywalled, but reproduced here) ran a series on Butler's growing political influence all the way back in 1977. Much of this would be undue at Tulsi Gabbard, and covering it at ISKCON_guru_system would be inappropriate because they aren't part of that system.  Nblund talk 17:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Stuff Magazine?? Well I guess WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? :-)  Sorry. Could help an inappropriate policy reference. I guess Stuff Magazine is moderat-ish RS that doesn't discuss the group in relation to Gabbard. The group still seems to skirt the line when it comes to notability. NickCT (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit I also find the name a bit off-putting, but it appears they operate a good chunk of the respected print media outlets in New Zealand, and the story appears well-reported. I guess it's not any worse of a name than Buzzfeed. Nblund talk 01:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Stuff.conz are cited 11,889 times @en.wp. The author is claimed (§) to be the news editor of a Stuff-related tabloid  (§) called Sunday News. The correction and apology note at the bottom of the article shows they have editors. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - For the record, I'm not saying it's not a RS. Just that it's not the highest quality RS. After all, who trusts a Kiwi?
 * Regardless, this group still doesn't have a huge amount of non-local or recent and non-Gabbard-related coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.